In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226>,
 Philippe Lhoste <Phi### [at] GMXnet> wrote:

> I don't like software patenting, at least for obvious things or algorithms 
> known for a long time.

The problem with that condition is that the patent reviewers usually 
don't know it. There are many patents on things that are completely 
non-original. A lot of software patents seem to be for things that any 
programmer would come up with when faced with the same problem.
Banning software patents seems inconsistent though...it is a real 
machine, even if you can't touch it. The difference between a 
mathematical algorithm and a machine is pretty blurry.
Copyright seems a better way to handle it, but I think copying the 
actual code is rarely a problem. And at what point does a piece of code 
become copyrightable? A program is like an equation, there are only a 
few ways to express the same thing in a language. Copyrighting the 
source to a program makes sense, but can you copyright a small for() 
loop that would be written by any programmer solving the same problem?


> I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but I believe patenting can 
> be useful to protect intellectual investment.

It could if it worked right. At first, the American system seems to have 
worked pretty well, but it has mutated badly and now seems to do more 
harm than good. I don't know about the patent systems of other countries.


> I mean, an individual or a company invests a lot of time/money to develop 
> an idea, say a simple device to close a cloth with a quick gesture (using 
> a lot of small interlocking elements). If patents didn't exists, as soon 
> as it is commercially released, concurrents can copy the device and sell 
> it, perhaps at cheaper prices if they are bigger. So the small company or 
> individual just no longer sell its device, because they are crushed by the 
> power of the copying company.

Well, if it is complex enough, it will be difficult to copy. If it is 
simpler, it would have been less "worthy" of a patent. I know this 
doesn't work well in real life.
The original goal of patents was to protect the original creator while 
avoiding stunting the growth of technology by companies and inventors 
keeping things secret. Without patents, you either keep the technique 
secret and others have to develop it themselves, or someone with more 
capital copies the idea and puts you out of business.
Patents now seem to be making the problem worse: companies are 
collecting large portfolios of simple patents and using them to squash 
innovation in or bleed money out of potential competitors. They are also 
using loopholes to keep control of things longer than what the system 
intended. The "little guys" are still vulnerable, and the big guys are 
now backed by the government.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message